What procedures would you advocate for this new commission, daggett?

This is how they conducted their interviews for the first one:

"The Americans tortured him for eight hours at a time, tying him tightly in stressful positions in a small chair until his hands feet and mind went numb. They retied him in a chair every hour, tightening the bonds on his hands and feet each time so that it was more painful. He was often hooded and had difficulty breathing. They also beat him repeatedly, slapping him in the face, and deprived him of sleep.

"When he was not being interrogated, the Americans put Majid in a small cell that was totally dark and too small for him to lie down in or sit in with legs stretched out. He had to crouch. The room was also infested with mosquitoes. This torture only stopped when Majid agreed to sign a statement that he wasn’t even allowed to read. But then it continued when Majid was unable to identify certain streets and neighborhoods in Karachi that he did not know."

http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/30/624314.aspx

Or do you see something a little more... persuasive?

Bugsy's post provides a perfect illustration of this seeming addiction to unqualified acceptance of the 'official line' on the part of many who participate in discussion of such events. A symptom of this addiction seems to be an accompanying need to launch into the labelling of any questioner of any 'official line' as being 'off the wall', 'obsessive', 'a nutbag', 'a waster of time and energy', and such like.

Let me make it quite clear that I have no firm view one way or the other as to whether there was another dimension to the 9/11 events beyond what we were all able to see from the television footage. I do not pretend to have even considered any evidence as to whether or not the building collapses were in any way assisted beyond the effects arising from the aircraft impacts. I have no need to believe any one scenario over another.

That is not what I think this thread is about.

It is obviously about the apparent prevalence of 'raw nerves' that seem to be so easily touched, not so much by the taking of a particular position pro or con a proposition, but by the very suggestion that there might even be an alternative view to the accepted or official one. I don't see daggett as promoting any 'conspiracy theory'. I do see him having reviewed some seemingly conflicting evidence or claims, and being prepared to keep an open mind. He has given links pro and con.

Contrast with the exercise, in relation to an event displaced in time by nearly 70 years from the present, that I suggested in my first post, Bugsy's response given before he could possibly have done as suggested. If he had read my first post in the instant of its posting, he had at most 21 minutes within which to read and digest the thread I suggested, then compile his own post. I have difficulty believing he read it at all.

Seems some posters feel threatened by evidence of the existence of an enquiring mind.

What's their problem?

The problem Forrest, is that when so much time and energy that has already been expended on topics such as this, and the conclusions soundly drawn from the real evidence, and they resurface all the time and never die because of some obscure flaw in human nature that has to keep rehashing the same crap and hope against hope that there's something else behind it.

This is by no means exclusive to the 9/11 attacks it applies to many other conspiracy theories and psedoscientific mumbo jumbo. Frustrating to say the least.

You can argue that any belief in things like Intelligent Design, homeopathy, CIA participation in the Kennedy assassination, US government complicity in the WTC & Pentagon attacks or whatever are all valid concerns/beliefs and have a right to respect. You can argue that. I beg to differ.

Bugsy wrote "...the conclusions have been soundly drawn from the real evidence, ..."

They have not, Bugsy.

We are told that the aircraft hit the Pentagon at ground level. As the engines hang lower than the body of the aircraft, then there should have been furrow marks on the lawn outside the Pentagon. Where are they? Where are all the parts of the plane which supposedly flew into the Penatagon? (They did recover all the Pan Am aircraft which was blown up over Lockerbie, didn't they?)

Within 5 minutes of the Penatagon being hit FBI agents were confiscating all video footage of the impact and none have since been released to the public.

Both the above facts were put by Gage but were not challenged by Shermer on the radio debate at http://noliesradio.org/

Also, If you consider that too much time has already been spent wasted discussing issues such as this, then why are you here?

Could you either engage with the facts or else go elsewhere?

Just to please you cacofonix, I will no longer waste my energy on it. I already did that years ago after the loose change video came out, I looked. I questioned. I'm done. Good luck with whatever it is you think you're achieving.

It's surely an intriguing question.

Some points.

1/ I hear a lot about 'Many of the hijackers were found alive in their own countries.

COMMENT But I've yet to see a live interview with any of them. If anyone knows of one.. please supply a reference.

2/ If those flying the planes were not those named, then.. who were they ? I've not seen any suggestion as to who, nor any evidence about a)Who
b)Their motive to die.. (economic reasons?)
Surely, if some were not the Arab Islamists, they must have been others who would have backgrounds which included some shred of evidence about what might have motivated them. I've heard nothing.

3/ All the mention of huge companies making huge profits from the war...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ixuf236Dk
Were in business before 9/11 and the reasons given for 9/11 were to justify an invasion of Iraq, the goal of which was 'control' of Iraq's oil, but Iraq seems to be in control of it's own oil.

4/ The Caspian basin is said to be the 2nd largest oil/gas reserves, and that the US needed an excuse to gain control of Afghanistan to ensure it could 'get' this.

But

On May 13, the BBC announced that: `Afghanistan hopes to strike a deal later this month to build a $2bn pipeline through the country to take gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India. Afghan interim ruler Hamid Karzai is to hold talks with his Pakistani and Turkmenistan counterparts later this month on Afghanistan's biggest foreign investment project.

"India and Pakistan"...... how does the USA benefit from this? Will they make it a 'toll' pipeline?